God is indifferent

[inocente]

Abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule. Otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty.

An eighteen year old is taken in a cattle truck to a death camp, kept hungry and suspects her ethnicity is being systematically and industrially massacred, and she will be taken to die at any moment. Not only can she not initiate and control her own actions, she cannot possibly think freely, if she can even string thoughts together.

And as she urinates herself in terror, you believe Christ judges her thoughts, innocent or guilty? And that’s Christ’s justice, you say?

 

[minkymurph]

Abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule. Otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty.

I would agree that abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule.

I once heard a priest say, ‘We should ask ourselves do we want to convert people to Christ or convert them to ourselves?’ Thus, when seeking to persuade another to endorse or accept a ‘general rule’ or principle, we should ask ourselves if we truly believe in what we are saying and if we genuinely believe persuading another to accept our position will benefit both them and others, or are we simply seeking self endorsement out of a desire to be right in our own eyes?

Where in our eyes we prove someone wrong through counter argument alone what do we achieve other than self endorsement? Demonstrating another party to a discussion is wrong presents little difficulty. There are few sound arguments that cannot be countered in some respect irrespective of how sound they are, and irrespective of how sound a ‘general rule’ is there will inevitably be some circumstance in which it cannot justly be applied or fail some individual. If this were not the case we would have a ‘general rule’ that is flawless in all respects and I personally do not think such a rule could ever exist in an imperfect world.

We could think of all sorts of circumstances in which this would be the case but those circumstances do not render the ‘general rule’ invalid in total and an outright failure. I could cite many examples where this is the case but I am confident so could everyone else on this thread. The question then is how to determine the soundness of a ‘general rule.’ One way is in identifying the benefits that may be derived from it’s application and by contrast the detriment in it’s absence. The title of this thread is ‘God is indifferent.’ I have sought to demonstrate the benefits of believing God is not indifferent and the detriment of believing that He is. I do not profess I have demonstrated this flawlessly and irrevocably and others are free to reject my reasoning, but critique in itself is insufficient to be persuasive. The question then is what are the benefits of believing God is indifferent and how is believing God is not indifferent detrimental?

 

[tonyrey]

Abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule. Otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty.

It is absolutely false to assert I believe Christ judges her thoughts, He is not a pitiless adjudicator but a loving Redeemer who shares her suffering and welcomes her with open arms to heaven.

The fact remains that** abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule.** Otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty.What is that unfortunate girl supposed to be guilty of? Being an innocent victim like Our Lord?

 

[Wesrock]

An indifferent God would not create.

 

[tonyrey]

An indifferent God would not create.

Precise and concise!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

An indifferent God would not create.

The title of the thread is elaborated upon in the OP. I chose simple, eye-catching phrase, but in the OP I explained that God is not assumed to be totally indifferent to everything, only indifferent to OUR fate, indifferent to what happens to US. After all the whole Christianity revolves around US, we are supposed to be the “crown of creation”, and God does not interfere in our lives, either in a positive or in a negative manner.

If he did care about us in a positive manner, he would have bypassed this whole valley of tears, and only created us in heaven. Of course I already explained this before.

 

[tonyrey]

The title of the thread is elaborated upon in the OP. I chose simple, eye-catching phrase, but in the OP I explained that God is not assumed to be totally indifferent to everything, only indifferent to OUR fate, indifferent to what happens to US. After all the whole Christianity revolves around US, we are supposed to be the “crown of creation”, and God does not interfere in our lives, either in a positive or in a negative manner.

If he did care about us in a positive manner, he would have bypassed this whole valley of tears, and only created us in heaven. Of course I already explained this before.

You are implying life in this world is worthless - which is absurd. If you went around asking people if they agree they would look at you as if you need a psychiatrist.

And dogmatic assertions such as “God does not interfere in our lives, either in a positive or in a negative manner” are worthless unless they are supported with specific evidence. How on earth could a person with limited knowledge and intelligence ever be entitled to make such a presumptuous, sweeping generalisation in view of innumerable answers to prayer thoughout history and throughout the world? :ehh:

 

[tonyrey]

:ehh:

Catholic Dictionary : FREE WILL The power of the will to determine itself and to act of itself, without compulsion from within or coercion from without. It is the faculty of an intelligent being to act or not act, to act this way or another way, and is therefore essentially different from the operations of irrational beings that merely respond to a stimulus and are conditioned be sensory objects.

“The faculty of an intelligent being **to act or not act, to act this way or another way” does not imply that circumstances always **favour the accomplishment of one’s intentions.

 

[inocente]

It is absolutely false to assert I believe Christ judges her thoughts, He is not a pitiless adjudicator but a loving Redeemer who shares her suffering and welcomes her with open arms to heaven.

The fact remains that** abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule.** Otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty.What is that unfortunate girl supposed to be guilty of? Being an innocent victim like Our Lord?

At the start of that second paragraph you say there’s a general rule, since otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty. By the end of the paragraph you say the rule does not apply.

Leaving aside how any circumstance could possibly be abnormal to an omniscient god, and leaving aside what this rule states and where it states it, it may be worth pointing out that in standard theology, excepting only logical impossibilities, God is omnipotent and so not bound by rules.

You forgot to answer post #289.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured” (post #198). Deciding whether to cure someone based on whether it will benefit society is the exact opposite of Christian morality.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone” (ibid). Nowhere does Christ say it is reckless for everyone to be healthy.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “He knows it is better for us to have free will - without which we would be incapable of love - than prevent evil” (#238)…

Unless the Church does teach all the above, I suggest we’ve spent enough time on this now and it might be good to let the thread get back to standard theology.

“The faculty of an intelligent being **to act or not act, to act this way or another way” does not imply that circumstances always **favour the accomplishment of one’s intentions.

Then send your comment to the Catholic Dictionary, and all the others, asking them to change their definitions.

 

[tonyrey]

At the start of that second paragraph you say there’s a general rule, since otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty. By the end of the paragraph you say the rule does not apply.

Leaving aside how any circumstance could possibly be abnormal to an omniscient god, and leaving aside what this rule states and where it states it, it may be worth pointing out that in standard theology, excepting only logical impossibilities, God is omnipotent and so not bound by rules.

You forgot to answer post #289.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured” (post #198). Deciding whether to cure someone based on whether it will benefit society is the exact opposite of Christian morality.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone” (ibid). Nowhere does Christ say it is reckless for everyone to be healthy.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “He knows it is better for us to have free will - without which we would be incapable of love - than prevent evil” (#238). It wasn’t better for that girl. Her free will was stolen from her by evil. Six million times over.

We’ve probably spent enough time on the inconsistencies in your labyrinthine personal theology now, and it might be good to let the thread get back to standard theology.

Then send your comment to the Catholic Dictionary, and all the others, asking them to change their definitions.

 

[tonyrey]

It is absolutely false to assert I believe Christ judges her thoughts, He is not a pitiless adjudicator but a loving Redeemer who shares her suffering and welcomes her with open arms to heaven.

No response…

The fact remains that** abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule.**

Otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty.What is that unfortunate girl supposed to be guilty of? Being an innocent victim like Our Lord?At the start of that second paragraph you say there’s a general rule, since otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty. By the end of the paragraph you say the rule does not apply.
Leaving aside how any circumstance could possibly be abnormal to an omniscient god, and leaving aside what this rule states and where it states it, it may be worth pointing out that in standard theology, excepting only logical impossibilities, God is omnipotent and so not bound by rules…

Irrelevant. The issue is abnormal circumstances like those of the Jewish girl.

You forgot to answer post #289.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “divine omniscience which enables the Creator to decide who will benefit society and themselves the most from being cured” (post #198). Deciding whether to cure someone based on whether it will benefit society is the exact opposite of Christian morality.

Deciding whether to cure someone without taking into account the welfare of others is the exact opposite of Christian morality which teaches that God loves **all **His children not just the select few.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone” (ibid). Nowhere does Christ say it is reckless for everyone to be healthy.

Non sequitur.

I asked, does the Church teach that God doesn’t practice what he preaches? As in your “He knows it is better for us to have free will - without which we would be incapable of love - than prevent evil” (#238)…

It is absurd to compare divine activity to human behaviour.

Unless the Church does teach all the above, I suggest we’ve spent enough time on this now and it might be good to let the thread get back to standard theology.

Standard theology teaches that God loves **all **His children - and is no respecter of persons…

“The faculty of an intelligent being **to act or not act, to act this way or another way” **

does not imply that circumstances** always **favour the accomplishment of one’s intentions. Then send your comment to the Catholic Dictionary, and all the others, asking them to change their definitions.

The **ability **to perform an act doesn’t imply the circumstances will always be favourable. Free will doesn’t mean we can always do anything we choose to do.

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who **can **initiate and control his own actions. (Not always does initiate and control his own actions).

In spite of having free will we can lose our power of self-control, as when we get angry, and be frustrated by our limitations - as when we are ill - or limitations imposed by others - as when we are imprisoned. It’s not true that where there’s a will there is (always) a way…

 

[tonyrey]

I guess analytical thinkers can fall in the trap of forgetting we’re not computers.

Indeed. The **ability **to perform an act doesn’t imply the circumstances will always be favourable! Free will doesn’t mean we can do anything we like:
1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.

In spite of having free will we can lose the power of self-control, as when we get angry, and be frustrated by our limitations or those imposed by others, as when we are in prison. It’s not true that where there’s a will there is (always) a way.

 

[tonyrey]

I would agree that abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule.

I once heard a priest say, ‘We should ask ourselves do we want to convert people to Christ or convert them to ourselves?’ Thus, when seeking to persuade another to endorse or accept a ‘general rule’ or principle, we should ask ourselves if we truly believe in what we are saying and if we genuinely believe persuading another to accept our position will benefit both them and others, or are we simply seeking self endorsement out of a desire to be right in our own eyes?

Where in our eyes we prove someone wrong through counter argument alone what do we achieve other than self endorsement? Demonstrating another party to a discussion is wrong presents little difficulty. There are few sound arguments that cannot be countered in some respect irrespective of how sound they are, and irrespective of how sound a ‘general rule’ is there will inevitably be some circumstance in which it cannot justly be applied or fail some individual. If this were not the case we would have a ‘general rule’ that is flawless in all respects and I personally do not think such a rule could ever exist in an imperfect world.

We could think of all sorts of circumstances in which this would be the case but those circumstances do not render the ‘general rule’ invalid in total and an outright failure. I could cite many examples where this is the case but I am confident so could everyone else on this thread. The question then is how to determine the soundness of a ‘general rule.’ One way is in identifying the benefits that may be derived from it’s application and by contrast the detriment in it’s absence. The title of this thread is ‘God is indifferent.’ I have sought to demonstrate the benefits of believing God is not indifferent and the detriment of believing that He is. I do not profess I have demonstrated this flawlessly and irrevocably and others are free to reject my reasoning, but critique in itself is insufficient to be persuasive. The question then is what are the benefits of believing God is indifferent and how is believing God is not indifferent detrimental?

There are no benefits whatsoever from believing God is indifferent. It is detrimental to think He couldn’t care less what happens to us or society as a whole. He loves all of us without exception.

 

[inocente]

No response…

You’ve done that thing where you put my name on a quote that I never said.

Irrelevant. The issue is abnormal circumstances like those of the Jewish girl.

Then you’re talking of duress, which is overwhelming and negating someone’s free will. She doesn’t have free will.

*Deciding whether to cure someone without taking into account the welfare of others is the exact opposite of Christian morality which teaches that God loves **all ***His children not just the select few.
Non sequitur.
It is absurd to compare divine activity to human behaviour.
Standard theology teaches that God loves **all **His children - and is no respecter of persons…

I’ve asked you several times whether the Church teaches various specific things you’ve stated, and several times you’ve not answered, so I think we’re just repeating ourselves now.

*The **ability ***to perform an act doesn’t imply the circumstances will always be favourable. Free will doesn’t mean we can always do anything we choose to do.

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who **can **initiate and control his own actions. (Not always does initiate and control his own actions).

In spite of having free will we can lose our power of self-control, as when we get angry, and be frustrated by our limitations - as when we are ill - or limitations imposed by others - as when we are imprisoned. It’s not true that where there’s a will there is (always) a way…

The girl’s dignity was stolen, and in her terror she is no longer a rational being, and she cannot even act to stop urinating herself in terror. You say “It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone” (post #198). Well if God is frightened of being reckless, we wouldn’t. We would be reckless and risk our lives to help her. Compassion is reckless, love is reckless.

And God himself said he’s just as reckless - “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends”. On a Cross reckless.

 

[inocente]

The title of the thread is elaborated upon in the OP. I chose simple, eye-catching phrase, but in the OP I explained that God is not assumed to be totally indifferent to everything, only indifferent to OUR fate, indifferent to what happens to US. After all the whole Christianity revolves around US, we are supposed to be the “crown of creation”, and God does not interfere in our lives, either in a positive or in a negative manner.

If he did care about us in a positive manner, he would have bypassed this whole valley of tears, and only created us in heaven. Of course I already explained this before.

I guess some people demand signs, need miracles, before they can see God. And without them, God is indifferent. Others demand proofs, need theories, before they can see God. And without them, God is indifferent. But (with apologizes to Paul, 1 Cor 1) “Miracle hunters demand signs and theorists look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to miracle hunters and foolishness to theorists.”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I guess some people demand signs, need miracles, before they can see God. And without them, God is indifferent. Others demand proofs, need theories, before they can see God. And without them, God is indifferent.

We are all different from each other. What is sufficient for one is not sufficient for others. Doubting Thomas was given a clear sign, when he asked for one. And God said: “Ask and you will be answered; knock and the door will be opened”. Of course it is also there that “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”. So God likes to “hedge his bets”; wishes to eat his cake and have it too. Just like the prayers, which end with: “If it be thy will”. If God fulfills the prayer, he is good and worthy to be worshipped. If he does not, it was not his will, but since we exonerated him up front, there is no reason to complain. Remember the Church Lady: “How conveeenient!” (google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=church+lady+how+convenient&*)

But (with apologizes to Paul, 1 Cor 1) “Miracle hunters demand signs and theorists look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to miracle hunters and foolishness to theorists.”

And the above is the reason why some people discard the “preaching”.

I stick to the simple observation: “If someone is in the position to help and does not help, then this person is either malevolent of indifferent”. And also: “If someone is in the position to hurt others, and does not do it, then this person is either benevolent, or indifferent”. Taking both into consideration, the “intersection” is: "God is indifferent.

 

[tonyrey]

Then you’re talking of duress, which is overwhelming and negating someone’s free will. She doesn’t have free will.

The **ability **to perform an act doesn’t imply the circumstances will always be favourable. Free will doesn’t mean we can do anything we like:

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.

In spite of having free will we can lose the power of self-control, as when we get angry, and be frustrated by our limitations or those imposed by others, as when we are in prison. It’s not true that where there’s a will there is (always) a way.

The girl’s dignity was stolen, and in her terror she is no longer a rational being, and she cannot even act to stop urinating herself in terror. You say “It would certainly be reckless for God to heal everyone” (post #198). Well if God is frightened of being reckless, we wouldn’t. We would be reckless and risk our lives to help her. Compassion is reckless, love is reckless.

And God himself said he’s just as reckless - “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends”. On a Cross reckless.

Irrelevant. It would defeat the purpose of creating a predictable universe if God suspended the laws of nature whenever a person or animal is going to be harmed or killed. It would also defeat the purpose of giving us free will if God prevented us from using our power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love. A constant spate of miracles would make it impossible not to realise a benevolent Power is protecting everyone from suffering, injured or being killed.

Ironically Luther addresses the hiddenness of God in nearly every aspect of his theology:

Quote:
Indeed, Bernhard Lohse believes the Deus absconditus is Luther’s greatest contribution to the Christian theology of God. His later writings on the **Deus absconditus **most frequently address the God who hides himself from his saints in contradiction to his given revelation of himself, in order to cause faith to become true faith. His strong experiential theology brings to light a perplexing problem on the nature of God and his relation to his saints and offers timeless wisdom for those who have found themselves confronted by the hidden God.
laurawelker.com/luthers%20hidden%20god.pdf

 

[tonyrey]

We are all different from each other. What is sufficient for one is not sufficient for others. Doubting Thomas was given a clear sign, when he asked for one. And God said: “Ask and you will be answered; knock and the door will be opened”. Of course it is also there that “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe”. So God likes to “hedge his bets”; wishes to eat his cake and have it too. Just like the prayers, which end with: “If it be thy will”. If God fulfills the prayer, he is good and worthy to be worshipped. If he does not, it was not his will, but since we exonerated him up front, there is no reason to complain. Remember the Church Lady: “How conveeenient!” (google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=church+lady+how+convenient&*)

And the above is the reason why some people discard the “preaching”.

I stick to the simple observation: “If someone is in the position to help and does not help, then this person is either malevolent of indifferent”. And also: “If someone is in the position to hurt others, and does not do it, then this person is either benevolent, or indifferent”. Taking both into consideration, the “intersection” is: "God is indifferent.

If you knew everyone is always prevented from being harmed or killed you would be compelled to believe God exists and incapable of living a normal life.

 

[tonyrey]

I guess some people demand signs, need miracles, before they can see God. And without them, God is indifferent. Others demand proofs, need theories, before they can see God. And without them, God is indifferent. But (with apologizes to Paul, 1 Cor 1) “Miracle hunters demand signs and theorists look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to miracle hunters and foolishness to theorists.”

22So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Luke 7:22

 

[minkymurph]

I stick to the simple observation: “If someone is in the position to help and does not help, then this person is either malevolent of indifferent”. And also: “If someone is in the position to hurt others, and does not do it, then this person is either benevolent, or indifferent”. Taking both into consideration, the “intersection” is: "God is indifferent.

I would concede where someone - or something the something being God, appears not to help we could readily conclude they are either malevolent or indifferent. I would also concede I have little confidence I could present arguments God is not indifferent to an individual who either doubts the existence of God or rejects there is a God outright. That said, the argument “If someone is in the position to help and does not help, then this person is either malevolent of indifferent” cannot withstand scrutiny as it is too easily countered.

The reason I state your argument is too easily countered is it cannot be stated conclusively where someone is in a position to help and does not help, they are either malevolent or indifferent. There are many circumstances in which someone may be in a position to help and chooses not to for legitimate reasons. I could give examples, but will not as I have every confidence you and others on this thread are equally capable of providing examples - unless I am asked to provide an example. Where we do not know or understand what those reasons, our observations of actual or perceived inactivity could readily lead us to conclude they are malevolent or indifferent, but in the absence of the necessary knowledge and insight it cannot be stated conclusively they are malevolent or indifferent. Even if it is a fact they are it cannot be concluded they will be malevolent or indifferent in every circumstance where they are in a position to help. The same reasoning can be applied to hurting others.

In addition I would also say based on my observations of the world that as a general rule humans require what in their view is a legitimate reason for helping or hurting others. It can of course be said there are exceptions to this rule and I have argued there are exceptions to every general rule, but by and large humans do need a reason to either help or hurt. This being the case, can it be said God requires a reason to help or hurt? I would say ‘yes.’ The reason I would say ‘yes’ is I would need a reason. I would be disinclined who help someone who made it clear they did not want my help. I would also be disinclined to help someone to is not prepared to help themselves within their capacity as I would not be doing them any favours if I did. I would need a very good reason to hurt someone, and it would depend on what the ‘hurt’ was. That is not to suggest I have the power and wisdom of the almighty, but I would not set rules for God I would not keep myself on the ground I believe He has more power and wisdom.

Based on the observed world we know for a fact there are people who genuinely believe God does help. They do not believe God necessarily helps us in the way we would like to helped, or the manner we as individuals deem most fit. They accept if God does not intervene there is a reason that in this life is unknown, but in the fullness of time will be known. It can be argued such individuals are at best mistaken and at worst deluded, brainwashed or promote belief in a benevolent God due to fact religion is a convenient vehicle by which to accumulate power and control over others, but it cannot be legitimately be argued everyone who believes in a benevolent God is does so for these reasons.

I have heard few people who believe in God say they believe He is indifferent. The question then is why would those who believe God reject the possibility He is indifferent? The answer is simple. Belief in the existence of God goes hand in hand with the belief He is benevolent. If we believe God is indifferent based on our personal observations and interpretations or otherwise, there is no purpose in believing in existence of God at all. If God is indifferent it is of no consequence to God whether we believe in His existence or not. If God is indifferent it is of no consequence to Him what moral and ethical code we choose to live by as it of no consequence to Him whether we lead a fulfilling life as individuals through utilization of our individual talents and abilities and enrich the lives of others as a result.

In conclusion, if one believes God exists it is in one’s better interests to believe He is benevolent on the ground it serves a purpose and brings benefits. If one believes God exists but is indifferent or malevolent no purpose is served, there are no benefits and one who draws such a conclusion has no reason to believe in the existence of God at all. Would you agree with these assertions?